Mlango v Mwandawiro (Civil Case E009 of 2026) [2026] SCC 34 (KLR)

4) In support of the claim, the claimant has heavily relied in my view on the tree assessment and valuation report and assessment report on pasture damages only. The respondent denies the claim on the basis that the cattle were not in the farm at all as they were tied to his farm. 5) I have perused the reports in support of the difierent facets of the claim. It is clear from the report that the incident happened in the month of May 2025 but assessment was done 6 months later (4/11/2025). In another report from the county government of Taita Taveta it is dated 13/6/2025 yet the contents therein indicate that the assessment was done on 7/11/2025. In essence the report was prepared in anticipation of the assessment. 6) It is thus not clear how the incident happened in the month of May and yet the report is done months later. This in my view does not give the expected and accurate estimation of the damage as due to the nature of trees and plants alleged to have been destroyed, by 6months the plants and trees would be growing again and as such it is dificult to state and/or identify with certainty the number of crops or trees that were destroyed. 7) Any assessment done on the basis of that lapse of time, amounts to an inaccurate estimation of the loss sufiered by the claimant if any. The report does not show pictures of what was actually destroyed. The report talks of 129 trees of difierent species for instance, the photos shared do not show these number of trees and in the absence of such photos, it is not clear how the assessor arrived at a finding that they were 129 trees when there is no evidence of existence of such number of trees and basing such an assessment on non-existent trees is an erroneous assessment hence unfair and unjust. 8) A perusal of the photos contained in the report show some dry branches hence I am unable to tell whether they were destroyed trees or firewood in the homestead. 9) There are no photos of the damaged crops/ trees as at the time it happened or of the cattle into the farm of the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant has not demonstrated ownership of the said crops and/or better still the farm upon which they were planted. No title deed has been produced in evidence to indicate that he actually owned the parcel of land upon which the trees and/or plants were destroyed. 10) Ownership of the parcel of land and/or the crops goes into the root of this claim and the claimant was duty bound to demonstrate ownership. It is not enough to merely state that the crops and trees belonged to him. He has to demonstrate with evidence which is not the case herein. 11) In essence locus standi has to be established by the claimant. It is not enough to produce an assessment report without proof of ownership of those trees and/or crops and/or the land upon which the trees and crops were growing on. The point that locus standi is a substantive issue that goes to the jurisdiction of this Court was ably discussed by the Supreme Court in Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others that a party approaching the Court must demonstrate suficient interest grounded in evidence and not mere assertion. The Court warned against entertaining claims founded on assumptions, conjecture, or abstract grievances. This is what the claimant is asking the court to do in this matter. 12) In the end I do find and hold that on the foregoing reasons, the claimant has not discharged the burden placed on him by the law. The case has not been proved to a balance of probabilities for the reasons aforestated. b) Who bears costs of the claim? 13) As it is now evident, the respondent has strenuously defended the claim and having been successful in the matter and that costs follow events he is awarded costs of the claim. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/34/eng@2026-03-17 2

page 2 of 3

Conclusion And Disposition. 14. 15. The upshot of the foregoing I make the following final orders; a. The claim contained in the statement of claim dated 26/1/2026 is wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed. b. The costs of the claim are awarded to the respondent. c. Let the file be closed forthwith. Those shall be the orders of this court. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT VOI SMALL CLAIMS COURT THIS….17th …..DAY OF …March…2026 F.M. MULAMA ADJUDICATOR/RM In the presence of: Court Assistant:- Daniel Damise. Ms. Wambura for the Claimant. Mr. Kertiony for the respondent. Page 3 of 3 Judgment VOI SCCC NO. E009 OF 2026 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/34/eng@2026-03-17 3

page 3 of 3